Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Fox grabs scifi thriller Influx for a movie adaptation

Illustration for article titled Fox grabs scifi thriller emInflux/em for a movie adaptation

In Daniel Suarez's upcoming book Influx, someone is imprisoning the world's technological geniuses to keep technology from advancing too far. It's an intriguing premise, and clearly Fox agrees, as they've optioned it before the book's release on February 20th. Here's the book's official description from Amazon:

Are smart phones really humanity's most significant innovation since the moon landings? Or can something else explain why the bold visions of the 20th century—fusion power, genetic enhancements, artificial intelligence, cures for common disease, extended human life, and a host of other world-changing advances—have remained beyond our grasp? Why has the high-tech future that seemed imminent in the 1960's failed to arrive?

Perhaps it did arrive...but only for a select few.

Particle physicist Jon Grady is ecstatic when his team achieves what they've been working toward for years: a device that can reflect gravity. Their research will revolutionize the field of physics—the crowning achievement of a career. Grady expects widespread acclaim for his entire team. The Nobel. Instead, his lab is locked down by a shadowy organization whose mission is to prevent at all costs the social upheaval sudden technological advances bring. This Bureau of Technology Control uses the advanced technologies they have harvested over the decades to fulfill their mission.

They are living in our future.

Presented with the opportunity to join the BTC and improve his own technology in secret, Grady balks, and is instead thrown into a nightmarish high-tech prison built to hold rebellious geniuses like himself. With so many great intellects confined together, can Grady and his fellow prisoners conceive of a way to usher humanity out of its artificial dark age?

And when they do, is it possible to defeat an enemy that wields a technological advantage half a century in the making?

Advertisement

It's obviously way too soon for any details about the movie, but we'll keep you posted.

[Via Coming Soon]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

This is a big reason why science should be done for the public and put in the public domain. Profit is overrated. It's not too farfetched for something like this to happen. The sad part is, there are people out there who actually are working to ensure we don't advance. Who want us to not take one more step into the future, and would actually be pleased as punch if everyone else (but them) slipped back into the dark ages.

Of course, it brings up a different question - one I've struggled with all my life. Is it the responsibility of a person with great ideas to bring those ideas to fruition? Lets say I could invent a viable faster than light engine tomorrow. Literally, I've got all the knowledge in my head to do it - and along with that engine comes good things like near 100% efficient solar energy collection, Light Hydrogen Fusion (helium byproduct, no radioactive waste), carbon nanotube chaining good enough to create a space elevator.... And the bad things - exotic matter weapons, gravity shredders, solar disruptors, all because the equations to complete that engine involve a unified theory that reveals not only the strengths but the weaknesses in the underlying universe and the methods by which one can sidestep relativity and the limitations on the speed of light. Do I put it out there and be responsible for not only launching humanity into the universe but giving it the tools of destruction on a galactic scale? Is it my right to make a judgement and decide not to do that? What if I know by releasing this technology, millions could die in petty conflicts and wars, but countless billions are allowed to explore the stars themselves... To create wars and disharmony in the short term because of societal upheaval yet join the universe in a grander existence. Where as if I withhold it, nobody else comes up with anything remotely similar and humanity dies by the billions before being snuffed out utterly by its own hubris? What is the right decision then?

Right now, I don't know. I can't say what I'd do. I do know that the worst possible choice is to make no choice at all. That's giving in to the worst of everything. Save the future by creating turmoil in the present? Or allow everyone to happily continue for a little while, before the hardships set in and our world is destroyed? Which one of these choices is the more evil?

I think to make the world a better place, we actually have to answer questions like that. Not just do something - but seriously look at the implications of doing something - and apply those choices to real life and real consequences. I think that we need to have our science and our technology in the public eye so that we know what is possible, and so that we cannot be destroyed by those things which we do not know. Ignorance is the destroyer of worlds - but more specifically our own world.

We need to change our ways. If we can do that - if we can choose to become a better people - then maybe, just maybe, we deserve a fighting chance to live. Do our nations really matter anymore? Especially when those nations seem to exist to control their populations, rather than protect and nurture them? We don't need one-world government. What we need is one world and all the people in it working together despite government. Of our own free will, of our own choice, for our own reasons. To cast aside our fears, our pains, maybe even our religions - at least until we have enough perspective on the subject to get it right. IF we could do that, then we have a chance.